Woodburn Interchange Project Environmental Assessment Interstate 5 (Pacific Highway) @ Oregon 214/219 Marion County, Oregon Federal Highway Administration Oregon Department of Transportation July 2005 Measurement Conversion Factors In accordance with recent Executive Orders and Secretary of Commerce direction, Federal Highway Administration and supporting agency project plans were to be converted to metric units by 2000. However, the Oregon Department of Transportation is now in the process of converting back to English units. This document, where appropriate, will reflect both English and metric units side by side to assist the reader. The following is a brief summary of the conversion factors and units used in this document. English Units Multiply By Metric units foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) cubic yard 0.7646 cubic meter acre (ac) 0.4047 hectare (ha) miles per hour (mph) 1.609 kilometers per hour (km/h) Alternative Format Availability In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, alternative formats of this document will be made available upon request. Woodburn Interchange Interstate 5 (Pacific Highway) @ Oregon 214/219 Marion County Key No. 12518 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C), 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, 49 U.S.C. Section 303, and 23 CFR Part 771 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation—Region 2 Tech Center ____________________________________________________________ ________________________ Oregon Department of Transportation Official Date ____________________________________________________________ ________________________ Federal Highway Administration Official Date The following persons may be contacted for additional information: Terry Cole Mike Morrow Jane Lee Project Leader Field Operations Engineer Area Manager ODOT Region 2 Federal Highway Administration ODOT Region 2 Tech Center 455 Airport Rd. SE Bldg. B 530 Center Street N.E, Suite 100 455 Airport Rd. SE Bldg. A Salem, OR 97301-5397 Salem, Oregon 97301 Salem, OR 97301-5397 (503) 986-2674 (503) 587-4708 (503) 986-2764 Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) proposal to improve the interchange structure, ramps, and connecting highways on Interstate 5 (Pacific Highway) at Oregon 214/219 near Woodburn, Oregon (i.e., the Woodburn Interchange). The project would reduce congestion in the area and improve the safety and function of the interchange and interstate system for the traveling public. The project area is located within the Woodburn city limits, on the western edge, at Milepost 271, in Marion County. The surrounding communities of Silverton, Mt. Angel, Gervais, Hubbard, and Molalla access I-5 using Oregon 214 (east of I- 5) and the communities of St. Paul and Newberg access I-5 using Oregon 219 (west of I-5). The EA evaluates two Build and one No-Build Alternatives. The “build” alternatives were developed with extensive stakeholder and local agency involvement using a ‘context sensitive design’ approach. Both build alternatives propose the reconstruction of the Woodburn Interchange which would include lengthening the on/off ramps, adding loop ramps, and widening the overcrossing of I-5 as well as Oregon 214 and 219 for additional travel lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, medians and buffer strips (both hard-scaped and landscaped), as well as new lighting, signals and signage. Alternative 1 (Widen Equal) would widen Oregon 214/219 equally to the north and south of the existing roadway centerline. Alternative 2 (Widen North) would widen Oregon 214/219 entirely to the north of the existing roadway centerline. Modifications to access for city streets would be made at Oregon Way, Evergreen Road, and Lawson Avenue for both build alternatives. Project impacts would be minor or negligible to air and water quality, streams and fish, vegetation and soils, visual resources, and land use. All impacts are required to be mitigated if they cannot be avoided. There would be minor noise increases and four sound walls are proposed as mitigation for those impacts. There are no historic or archaeological resources or threatened and endangered species in the project area. Impacts to wetlands/waters of the State/US would be less than half of an acre, and right- of-way (ROW) impacts are estimated at 10-12 acres (55-59 parcels). Seven to 11 businesses and one to five residences would be displaced. Travel speeds, traffic flow, and overall safety and function would be improved for all modes of travel using the reconstructed interchange. ROW cost is estimated at $17.5 million, and construction cost is estimated at $23-25 million. As of the printing of this EA, the project is partially funded (approximately $14 million for project development and ROW acquisition) but construction is not scheduled. The project would be built over a 2-3 year period. Contents Page Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... ix Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................xiii Glossary....................................................................................................................................... xv 1 Purpose of and Need for Action...................................................................................... 1-1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Need ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 General Setting................................................................................................. 1-1 Transportation Performance.......................................................................... 1-3 Goals and Objectives of the Woodburn Interchange Project ................................. 1-5 Probable Permits Needed............................................................................................ 1-6 2 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2-1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 2-1 Interchange Improvements......................................................................................... 2-1 Proposed Designs......................................................................................................... 2-2 Both Build Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-2 Alternative 1: Widen Equal.......................................................................... 2-17 Alternative 2: Widen North ......................................................................... 2-18 No Build Alternative..................................................................................... 2-19 Construction Phasing Proposed for the Build Alternatives .................... 2-19 Construction Costs and Funding ................................................................ 2-19 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed.................................................................. 2-20 3 Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 3-1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 3-1 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................... 3-1 Biological and Wetlands Resources ........................................................................... 3-2 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 3-2 Wildlife.............................................................................................................. 3-7 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-8 Archaeological Potential................................................................................. 3-9 NRHP Property................................................................................................ 3-9 Transportation .............................................................................................................. 3-9 Highway Facilities........................................................................................... 3-9 NonAutomotive Mode Facilities................................................................. 3-11 Land Use...................................................................................................................... 3-12 Study Area...................................................................................................... 3-12 Plans Reviewed.............................................................................................. 3-14 Existing Land Use.......................................................................................... 3-15 Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Parcels.............................................